Can the Universe Cause Itself to Exist from a Physics Perspective?

[Chalnoth]

If our universe is fully consistent and thus isomorphic to a mathematical structure, then TOE must be inconsistent to be able to prove the consistency of the universe!? Therefore the universe (=TOE) also must be inconsistent!? And if the universe is inconsistent, it cannot be a mathematical structure, therefore TOE can never be found (from 'inside')!?

Que? What am I missing...

Just because you can't prove from within the mathematical structure that the structure is consistent doesn't mean it isn't consistent. It just means you can't demonstrate it within said structure.

 

[Dmitry67]

Chalnoth had already replied...

DavilsAdvocado, do you know the Game of Life? The one you can play on the inlimited chess board? That Universe is degterministic and very simple. What is quite contreintuitive, is that both Goedels theorems are applicable to such universe: there are some statements regarding the configurations of dots which can not be proved or dismissed.

Also, not that Goedels theorem is not applicable to ANY mathematical structure, but to some subset of such structures.

 

[baywax]

11 + 100 = 111

actually, in visual terms 11 + 100 is equal to 11100

in this instance there are more ones than zeros and an imbalance continues to occur.

this might lead to expansion or inflation... but the ratio here between 1s (which now represent "something") and 0s... (which represent "nothing") is much less of an imbalance than 0 to 1. So... the dominance of nothing... or some other equally homologous medium, causes a violent reaction within itself that produces an opposite, balancing medium or condition. The sum of the metaphoric parts is a universe. Just guessing!

 

[Chronos]

Mathematics and the origins of the universe have a great deal in common - both rely on fundamental assumptions that, by definition, are unprovable. Logic allows us to delve a bit deeper, but also ultimately fails. There is no reasonable explanation why this, or any other universe exists, imo. For that reason, I favor the God hypothesis. It provides a reasonable, albeit incomplete, explanation.

 

[Chalnoth]

For that reason, I favor the God hypothesis. It provides a reasonable, albeit incomplete, explanation.

No, it really doesn't. The problem is that there's a tension between different definitions of the word, and neither class of definition comes close to solving the problem. The more specific your definition gets, the more complex your God gets, and thus the less it becomes an explanation. The less specific your definition gets, the more meaningless the term God even becomes, and thus it fails as an explanation in the other direction.

Because of this vague slipperiness of the very definition of the word "god", it is an impossibility to ever bring up any evidence for or against, and for that reason the hypothesis simply fails as being too poorly-defined.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Just because you can't prove from within the mathematical structure that the structure is consistent doesn't mean it isn't consistent. It just means you can't demonstrate it within said structure.

So how do we prove your second statement?

"2. If our universe is fully consistent, then it is isomorphic to some mathematical structure ..."

If the universe = mathematical structure, then how can we ever use mathematics to prove it fully consistent?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... Also, not that Goedels theorem is not applicable to ANY mathematical structure, but to some subset of such structures.

Agree. Many weak systems of arithmetic do not satisfy the hypotheses of the second incompleteness theorem. But now we are talking about the whole enchilada... things that do apply to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and things that don’t...

The problem is, as I see it, that we cannot 'pick and chose'; everything (in the universe) has to be fully consistent!?

The liar paradox seems hard to get out of - "The next sentence is false. The previous sentence is true."

 

[DevilsAvocado]

actually, in visual terms 11 + 100 is equal to 11100

Maybe...?

All I wanted to say is that number 7 is totally irrelevant, and created by humans (of course!). We can do perfectly well with 1/0, On/Off, black/white, light/dark, etc, to any calculation possible.

So the correct question maybe is - What created (caused) number light light light!?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... I favor the God hypothesis. It provides a reasonable, albeit incomplete, explanation.

I don’t agree. The 'designer hypothesis' immediately raises the larger problem - Who designed the designer!?

Furthermore, the 'designer' has exactly the same problem as quantum fluctuations – how to choose a moment for BB – in a 'period' where there was no time and no moments to choose...

And Occam's razor prefers simpler explanations, as 'nothingness', than an extremely complicated 'designer', to do the same thing.

 

[Chalnoth]

So how do we prove your second statement?

My point is that you simply define a mathematical structure as being a fully-consistent set of axioms. This definition means that there may be things which we call mathematical structures which actually aren't. And there are certainly many things which are mathematical structures which we are unaware of.

Our inability to be absolutely 100% certain whether or not everything we call a mathematical structure actually is one is basically irrelevant to the point.

If the universe = mathematical structure, then how can we ever use mathematics to prove it fully consistent?

An inconsistency is an impossibility. We may not be able to prove the mathematical structure which we think is isomorphic to our universe is consistent (and thus an actual mathematical structure). But we know that if it turns out not to be consistent, it can't describe our universe.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... An inconsistency is an impossibility. ...

Thanks a lot for the explanation. I think I see the light now...

We already know that the universe is fully consistent, otherwise we wouldn’t be here, right? Or we would be here, but a lot of people would get killed on the 'inconsistent highway' everyday – by Boltzmann Brains popping out of nowhere and smashing into their windshields...

So, if we can find a mathematical structure that describes this fully consistent universe, it is okay. And then we would know that the universe is isomorphic to that mathematical structure.

Correct?

 

[Newai]

I don't see why the universe has to have been created at all. The perception of time we have is perhaps something we should not pin to the nature of the universe. Slice time out of the mystery, and it might be easier to grasp.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't see why the universe has to have been created at all.

Well, our current evidence seems to suggest it was.

Or more to-the-point: our current evidence seems to suggest that, at one time, it wasn't.

 

[Chalnoth]

Thanks a lot for the explanation. I think I see the light now...

We already know that the universe is fully consistent, otherwise we wouldn’t be here, right? Or we would be here, but a lot of people would get killed on the 'inconsistent highway' everyday – by Boltzmann Brains popping out of nowhere and smashing into their windshields...

So, if we can find a mathematical structure that describes this fully consistent universe, it is okay. And then we would know that the universe is isomorphic to that mathematical structure.

Correct?

Well, just bear in mind that we may never be certain as to which mathematical structure it is (this would basically be a theory of everything).

As of right now, we don't even have a fully-developed mathematical structure that might conceivably be a theory of everything.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, our current evidence seems to suggest it was.

Or more to-the-point: our current evidence seems to suggest that, at one time, it wasn't.

That's not true. All that our current evidence shows is that our region of the universe had a beginning. This may have been a transition from some previous state, or it may have been started from nothing. We just don't know.

 

[DaveC426913]

That's not true. All that our current evidence shows is that our region of the universe had a beginning. This may have been a transition from some previous state, or it may have been started from nothing. We just don't know.

That changes absolutely nothing about Newai's comment or my response.

 

[Chalnoth]

That changes absolutely nothing about Newai's comment or my response.

But what I'm saying is that evidence about the status of our own region says nothing about the status of what lies outside our region, pro or con. So we can't honestly say we have evidence for a beginning of The Universe. Just our observable part.

 

[DaveC426913]

But what I'm saying is that evidence about the status of our own region says nothing about the status of what lies outside our region, pro or con. So we can't honestly say we have evidence for a beginning of The Universe. Just our observable part.

I got that. It still changes nothing.

Go back to newai's post and insert whichever one suits you.

 

[Chalnoth]

I got that. It still changes nothing.

Go back to newai's post and insert whichever one suits you.

So are you saying that our evidence doesn't suggest that the universe was created? Because it doesn't.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Well, just bear in mind that we may never be certain as to which mathematical structure it is (this would basically be a theory of everything).

As of right now, we don't even have a fully-developed mathematical structure that might conceivably be a theory of everything.

Thanks, that’s cool. I’m just happy that Gödel doesn’t mess all things up and that the universe is fully consistent.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I don't see why the universe has to have been created at all.

If you’re thinking of "Steady State" – forget it. We can rewind the (observable) universe and 'something' definitely happen 13.8 billion years ago – and we can prove it. If it was a Big Bounce, colliding Branes, or a new bubble in the Multiverse, or the beginning of everything from nothing – that we can’t prove, yet.

The perception of time we have is perhaps something we should not pin to the nature of the universe. Slice time out of the mystery, and it might be easier to grasp.

Time is a fundamental part of space-time in our (observable) universe and cannot be sliced out that simple. It’s like trying to explain life and slice out the parents of a newborn...

 

[DaveC426913]

So are you saying that our evidence doesn't suggest that the universe was created? Because it doesn't.

Our evidence does suggest that our portion of it was created.

 

[Chalnoth]

Our evidence does suggest that our portion of it was created.

But that language is highly misleading. Our evidence suggests that our portion of it had a beginning. But "was created" implies intent behind said creation. Simple formation out of a random event is far more likely.

 

[DaveC426913]

But that language is highly misleading. Our evidence suggests that our portion of it had a beginning. But "was created" implies intent behind said creation. Simple formation out of a random event is far more likely.

Well, you are making that inference; I am not. Nor did I think anyone else was.

If we are talking about intent that is a whole 'nother ball of worms.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, you are making that inference; I am not. Nor did I think anyone else was.

If we are talking about intent that is a whole 'nother ball of worms.

Yes, it is, which is why I prefer to use words which carry no such implication. Because whether you like it or not, "was created," does carry the implication of intent to many readers. So I simply opt to use neutral language, such as "began" or "had a beginning."

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, it is, which is why I prefer to use words which carry no such implication. Because whether you like it or not, "was created," does carry the implication of intent to many readers. So I simply opt to use neutral language, such as "began" or "had a beginning."

Context. This has not been a discussion about intent. You are broadening the scope of the discussion. In fact, you are the only one so far who has fallen victim to the apparent ambiguity that you warn against.

 

[Chalnoth]

Context. This has not been a discussion about intent. You are broadening the scope of the discussion. In fact, you are the only one so far who has fallen victim to the apparent ambiguity that you warn against.

I think you need to review the discussion again.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Gentlemen DaveC426913 & Chalnoth, couldn’t we settle all by (this layman logic):

If you’re thinking of "Steady State" – forget it. We can rewind the (observable) universe and 'something' definitely happen 13.8 billion years ago – and we can prove it. If it was a Big Bounce, colliding Branes, or a new bubble in the Multiverse, or the beginning of everything from nothing – that we can’t prove, yet.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think you need to review the discussion again.

OK, granted. In the larger discussion, there is talk about Creation.

However, the three of us (including you an newai) had been discussing creation as an effect of time, starting in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2554971#post2554971", which really had nothing at all to do with intent, nor had either of us used the "creation" word until you introduced it.

 

[Dmitry67]

If the universe = mathematical structure, then how can we ever use mathematics to prove it fully consistent?

This is impossible
To prove that any mathematical theory is self-consistent, you always need to use more powerful/more complicated theory.
So the whole mathematics is based on the pure belief.

The self-consistency of Peano arithmetics is proven in ZF set theory. And I believe there are no proofs that ZF (or other set theory, there are many different :) ) are self-consistent.